Top Gun Review

It's been about 18 years since I've seen this movie and there are a few things I didn't realize back then.  First, Tom Cruise is Dorian Grey.  Take a look at all of the actors' current headshots on IMDB and you'll see that the guy is not aging at all.  Second, the guy in the back of an F-14 exists solely to jerk his head around and panick while looking for "bogeys."  Third, I think the beach volleyball scene was there only to reward girlfriends for allowing their boyfriends to drag them to a movie about fighter pilots.  Finally, the best part of this movie is Anthony Edwards.  The Goose character is a fantastic Millhouse to Tom Cruise's Bart.  He steals every scene he's in and when he dies, it's still heartbreaking.

But that's not to say that the rest of the movie suffers.  It's still quite good.  Many action movies don't age well but this one does extremely well.  The aerial scenes are still able to put the viewer on the edge of the seat.  Danger Zone is still awesome to sing along to while planes are taking off.

There's not a whole lot to say about the rest of the cast's acting.  Michael Ironside and Tom Skerritt are solid in their supporting roles.  Val Kilmer is as good as he can be (which isn't much) and Tom Cruise is pretty solid even if there is more brooding than is necessary.  I think they tried to make the character too complicated with his sense of loyalty to Goose, angst over his father, and reckless attitude.  So there's a lot of confusion there.  The fact that Cruise could work as well as he did within those parameters is a testament to his abilities.

The one thing I don't like about this film is that the romantic interactions between Cruise and Kelly McGillis bring an otherwise fast paced action movie to a halt.  The pace is quite inconsistent.  It isn't enough to ruin the movie but it does make an above average movie out of something that could have been near perfect.

See it. It's always good for a nostalgic trip.

The Eagle Has Landed Review

Sometimes these movies from the 60s and 70s are hard to watch.  For the most part, cinema was just on the verge of becoming more realistic.  It's almost as if they knew they couldn't get away with the melodramatic acting anymore but had nobody who knew how to turn the corner.  They also didn't have the effects that we have today that can make a war movie more realistic.  The Eagle Has Landed is right on the edge of that.

What makes it a good movie is the source material.  Jack Higgins' book is what got me interested in reading and this is probably his best story.  He's a master of imagining a "what if" WWII scenario.  And the idea of sending Nazi paratroopers into England in a last ditch effort to turn the war tide is a fantastic premise.  So they had a great story to work with.  And the thrill of the story does keep you interested.  After that, it remains strong with the cast.  Put Michael Caine, Donald Sutherland and Robert Duvall in a movie and it's going to be at least decent.  It isn't any of their best performances (Sutherland's Irish accent is subpar) but they all do know how to deliver a line.  The lack of German accents for half of the Nazis is kind of distracting.  But I'd rather have that than a bad German accent.

Overall, it's worth your time simply because of the good story.  But there is a lack of good war tension that modern movie making techniques could fix.  It's one of the better ones that the era has to offer even if the era's limitations doesn't allow it to age as well as it could.

See it.  And if they ever do a remake, I'll be first in line.

Jackboots on Whitehall Commentary

Oh, the things you can find when you don't know what you want to watch so you're flipping around Netflix.  When I saw the description for this and the running time, I knew it was destined to be.  It's an alternate reality where the Dunkirk evacuation failed and Britain was left helpless to a German invasion.  The Germans inevitably invade and a small band of English farmers, Punjabi Guard, an American and Winston Churchill try to find a way to beat back the invaders.  Sounds great, doesn't it.  And it doesn't disappoint.

It would have been easy to turn this into a dark, almost post-apocalyptic piece.  But, instead, they make it comical in a way that only the English can.  There are the obvious, no holds barred, jabs at the Germans with Rommel, Goebbels and Goering being portrayed as a Larry, Moe and Curly type of triumvirate.  And the German jabs keep coming.  But what I really like is that there is no ethnic group that is safe from the stereotypical humour (and that makes it great satire).  The American is a "balls to the wall" moron.  The English farmers are farting morons, the Scottish are stuck in the time of William Wallace and Winston Churchill is just a doddering old man wanting his pension.

The superior level of satire is very reminiscent of Team America (another great movie).  This is compounded by the fact that they use stop motion and puppetry for the film rather than live action.  That was a fantastic choice because it adds to the lunacy and allows them to easily do violent, war actions without making the audience cringe.  It's dolls, so who cares?  It keeps the viewer from taking it seriously and adds to the humour.  Because it's a British movie, it feels a bit more refined and high brow than Team America but oddly still pedestrian and crude.  It's a style of humour that only the British can do.

From the start, I laughed all the way through.  The comedy is spaced very well and they don't let it drag on; something that is easy to do in a satire.  Definitely see it.

Bridge on the River Kwai Review

It had been a while since I had seen this and when I saw that Galaxy was showing it for $5, I thought I should give it another go.  But I forgot a couple of things.  First, I had forgotten that it is basically two movies.  The first half is Alec Guinness being a belligerent and stubborn officer and actually putting his men at risk.  If I had been in the military I would actually have resented him for refusing to do manual labour beside his men.  But that's just me.

Second, once he wins that battle (and you know he will so that's not a spoiler - also, the movie is 55 years old so I'm pretty sure the statute of limitations has run out), the real plot begins.  Guinness and his men take pride in building a bridge and William Holden is on a mission to return to the camp he was a prisoner in to blow it up.

This is a different kind of war movie.  In fact, it isn't even really a war movie as much as it is a movie that is set with war as a background.  There is not a lot of action and it's more of a morality play.  They cover a lot of questions about doing what's right in the face of adversity and what happens when you lose sight of what is right in favour of your own selfish ambitions.  In that regard, it is a very good film.  Guinness plays his role very well as does Sessue Hayakawa as Colonel Saito.  You can really see his descent into becoming a broken shell of a man even as his task is getting done.  It's a quite well done juxtaposition.  Given the era that it was made in, the technical aspects are decent.  Through the whole 2.5+ hours, you do get a sense of realism that is often lost on the older movies.  The only real beef I have is that a lot of the scenes go on too long like the walking through the jungle, setting the charges, etc.  The pace slows right down and I tended to lose focus.  But that's how things were done in Hollywood back then.  Other than that, it's an excellent film.

If you want a war movie, watch something else.  But if you want a more human experience with some excellent acting (especially for the era), see it.

Winter in Wartime Review

I will start by saying this is a very good movie.  However, it is not really a war movie in the traditional sense.  It is more a story about loyalty and doing the right thing in spite of very difficult circumstances.  It is also about being able to recognize what is the right thing when everything around you seems to be in shades of grey and the loss of innocence that can be a result.  That is why it is set in winter.  The film has a very bleak and grey quality to it that cannot be ignored.  It takes this theme and presents it in a setting that we normally view in cinema as being black and white, morally speaking.  That is the setting of World War II. (I also got the feeling that it was going to be about riding your bike as much as possible).

What I really liked about this movie is that it does not bog itself down into the morality of war or the participants in a war like so many World War II movies do.  There is a place for those movies but this was not it.  Instead, it allows us to see that nothing is black and white in a situation like that and doing the right thing is going to hurt other people.  Keep in mind that, when this movie is set, the outcome of the war was inevitable and predictable.  So why were they going through all the trouble to still do the right thing?  This makes the "doing the right thing" angle that much more intense.

From a technical standpoint, I would say this film is very good.  At least, I assume it is.  The directing and cinematography is good but I have a hard time determining the quality of the acting.  Most of it is not in English and is subtitled.  Therefore, I cannot really determine if the actors are delivering their lines convincingly.  But, from their non-verbal cues, it would seem that they are.

If you like artsy independent non-English movies, see it.  Otherwise, I would say give it a miss.  There's nothing revolutionary or different about the movie to make you go out of your way if you really do not like subtitles.

Battle Los Angeles

First, the good. The battle scenes are very good. They are action packed and lots of stuff blows up. I also liked that the aliens, while they have superior technology, they don't have a "super weapon" that wipes everything out in one fell swoop like in Independence Day. Also, they didn't get into the American moral superiority like in Battlefield Earth. That's a definite plus.

Now, the bad. Everything else. You can't start with a character/morality movie, abandon it after 15 minutes in favour of action and then try to salvage it at the end. All the stuff at the start about the soldier's lives was unnecessary and never got resolved. So lose it and make a decent action movie. Second, shaky camera work is never necessary. In trying to make it seem real, all you do is distract the audience from seeing the cool things like explosions and aliens. And it isn't realistic. The human eye compensates when the body is in motion but it can't anticipate and react fast enough when watching film. Third, Aaron Eckhart + Michelle Rodriguez = bad acting. The acting all around is just not good. Fourth, the military strategy wasn't well researched. Even I know that, in a situation like that, the raised freeways will be impassable. Everything's being blown up after all. Finally, I'm not sure why they felt there needed to be a closet romance between Freddy Mercury and one of Theo Huxtable's friends (it may be worth watching just to find out what I'm talking about).

See if you like battles and stuff getting turned into rubble and don't have to pay more than $3. Otherwise, just watch Independence Day again.